db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John H. Embretsen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2109) System privileges
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:01:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12559046#action_12559046

John H. Embretsen commented on DERBY-2109:

Dan commented:
> With the class DatabasePrincipal, a user name of "*" corresponds to all users. Is this
use of * come from any existing practice? In SQL authorization the identifier PUBLIC is used
to represent all users. Would it make more sense to use the SQL practice here?

At first glance I found it intuitive that the wildcard for "all principal names" is "*", since
a number of Permissions in a Java Security Policy file already accept * as a wildcard (e.g.
for host names, property names, file paths, etc.). I don't know much about existing practice
with regards to principal wildcards, but I found this [1]:

"The principal_class_name may be set to the wildcard value, *, which allows it to match any
Principal class. In addition, the principal_name may also be set to the wildcard value, *,
allowing it to match any Principal name. When setting the principal_class_name or principal_name
to *, do not surround the * with quotes. Also, if you specify a wildcard principal class,
you must also specify a wildcard principal name."

[1]: http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/technotes/guides/security/PolicyFiles.html#FileSyntax

So, I tried using a customized policy file with the latest patch, and from what I could see,

grant principal org.apache.derby.authentication.DatabasePrincipal * {

is, from a user's perspective, equivalent to

grant principal org.apache.derby.authentication.DatabasePrincipal "*" {

So, even if the wildcard in our implementation is changed to "PUBLIC" or something else, it
seems that users can still use the generic wildcard * (no quotes) to specify "all users" (correct
me if I'm wrong).

Other than that, I agree with Dan's comment about the need to specify how the various forms
of user names are handled (preferably in the user documentation as well, not only in the funcSpec).
The current handling/presentation/usage of user names in Derby is IMHO already quite confusing,
if not a mess, so it would be good not to add too many extra variables into the mix.

Finally, I would like to mention that I have done some (basic) manual experiments using Derby
with the latest patches for this issue applied, and have found no issues so far.

> System privileges
> -----------------
>                 Key: DERBY-2109
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2109
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Security
>    Affects Versions:
>            Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>            Assignee: Martin Zaun
>         Attachments: DERBY-2109-02.diff, DERBY-2109-02.stat, derby-2109-03-javadoc-see-tags.diff,
DERBY-2109-04.diff, DERBY-2109-04.stat, DERBY-2109-05and06.diff, DERBY-2109-05and06.stat,
DERBY-2109-07.diff, DERBY-2109-07.stat, DERBY-2109-08.diff, DERBY-2109-08.stat, DERBY-2109-08_addendum.diff,
DERBY-2109-08_addendum.stat, SystemPrivilegesBehaviour.html, systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html,
systemPrivs.html, systemPrivs.html
> Add mechanisms for controlling system-level privileges in Derby. See the related email
discussion at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/33151.
> The 10.2 GRANT/REVOKE work was a big step forward in making Derby more  secure in a client/server
configuration. I'd like to plug more client/server security holes in 10.3. In particular,
I'd like to focus on  authorization issues which the ANSI spec doesn't address.
> Here are the important issues which came out of the email discussion.
> Missing privileges that are above the level of a single database:
> - Create Database
> - Shutdown all databases
> - Shutdown System
> Missing privileges specific to a particular database:
> - Shutdown that Database
> - Encrypt that database
> - Upgrade database
> - Create (in that Database) Java Plugins (currently  Functions/Procedures, but someday
Aggregates and VTIs)
> Note that 10.2 gave us GRANT/REVOKE control over the following  database-specific issues,
via granting execute privilege to system  procedures:
> Jar Handling
> Backup Routines
> Admin Routines
> Import/Export
> Property Handling
> Check Table
> In addition, since 10.0, the privilege of connecting to a database has been controlled
by two properties (derby.database.fullAccessUsers and derby.database.defaultConnectionMode)
as described in the security section of the Developer's Guide (see http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/devguide/cdevcsecure865818.html).

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message